About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 14
MSNBCW 11
CSPAN2 5
KPIX (CBS) 3
FBC 2
CSPAN 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 69
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 69 (some duplicates have been removed)
it certainly was clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al-qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy, and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely, it was wrong. megyn: joining us now, kelly ayotte, a republican senator from new hampshire who was part of those meetings today and whose sound bite you just heard. senator, welcome back to the program. >> thank you, megyn. megyn: all right, explain that for us, if you would. why are you more troubled today than you were before you met with ambassador rice? >> well, first of all, i appreciated that we had the meeting today, but i will say that up front the acting director of the cia and ambassador rice said that the story about the video and the protests was wrong. in fact, the acting director of the cia said by the 22nd of september they had absolutely confirmed that that was wrong, and so i think the first issue is having gone on every major news network and represented that story that she now admits is wron
to the salafists and al qaeda, yeah. they are a muslim brotherhood government which is why morsi had the leverage to negotiate the cease-fire. >> mika, a lot of interesting things, talking about foreign policy going on here at home, talking about who the next secretary of state may be, john mccain said, along with lindsey graham and several others, who said they were going to fight susan rice tooth and nail, that sort of changed over the weekend, didn't it? >> that appears to be changing just a tad bit. heilmann, you wrote about it. senator mccain is softening his attacks on u.n. ambassador susan rice after vowing to block her potential nomination as secretary of state. republicans claim ambassador rice deliberately misled the country in the aftermath of the september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. but rice says that she's not to blame, arguing she relied on the talking points from the intelligence community. although mccain had threatened a senate filibuster earlier this month, he's now open to meeting directly with miss rice. >> is there anything that ambassador rice can do to c
.i.a. immediately it was terrorism and it said al-qaeda in the official c.i.a. talking points. but after it left our hands, we don't know exactly who changed the talking points. brian, that's what everybody in washington has been trying to figure out, who, who, who did it? >> brian: the national intelligence director, james clapper, the same who went up to general petraeus and said, i really suggest you resign, says it was my office. he said that because the al-qaeda mentions by the c.i.a. in his mind, were tenuous and too tenuous to publicize, so cbs learned and we have confirmed, that we decided to tell congress that -- or susan rice a different story. >> alisyn: this is curious because the committee that's investigating this and the house said that they tonight remember that. in fact, that is quite opposite from what was testified to previously about who knew what when. so congressman mike rogers, who is the chairman of the committee said he finds this story officially, basically, out of the office and he wants to reinterview james clapper to ask about this, quote, new explanation coming out of t
there was clearly counter information that affirmed that this was a terrorist attack orchestrated by an al qaeda affiliated organization. >> by now you know the story. rice intimated a cheesy anti-islam film caused the murderous rampage at the consulate in benghazi, libya. not true. her assertion on several sunday talk shows was okayed by the intelligence community and caused one great big partisan brawl. soon, democrats piled on, accusing republicans of racism. >> susan rice's comments didn't send us to iraq and afghanistan. somebody else's did. but you're not angry with them. i would just say in closing that it is a shame that any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities. i have a real issue with that. >> yet when asked about mccain, rice was conciliatory. >> i have great respect for senator mccain and his service to our country. i always have. and i always will. i do think that some of the statements he made about me have been unfounded. but i look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this with him. >> so, after mccain saying he would
denied al qaeda's lead role in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that cost the lives of ambassador chris stevens and three others and she did so knowing it was true. well, the man who defeated mccain in the 2008 presidential campaign takes this as a personal shot at him. how will he respond? will he name ambassador rice his new secretary of state to replace hillary clinton? will he meet mccain's challenge head on and send rice up to the capitol to go face-to-face with the enemy? tonight we study the battlefield and the firepower of the two sides in this year-ending fire fight. mccain sure wants this fight, but do his fellow republicans? do they want an older white guy taking on the competence of a young woman of color, a rhodes scholar of solid reputation? most important, what end does the president want for this match of fact and wits? i'm joined by michael o'hanlon of the brookings institution and jonathan landay. the intelligence reporter for mcclatchy newspapers. michael, thank you for this. i want to get to the facts. am i right, is the main charge here coming fr
to which clearly contradicted that. she also by the way said al qaeda was decimated along with bin laden being killed. al qaeda is not decimated. al qaeda is roaring back in most parts of the mid eels. >>> the attack happened two months ago on september 11th. lindsay gram and kelly eye ott will meet with ambassador rice today. they will try to get to the bottom of the attacks on benghazi. the white house shows strong support for the ambassador. >> ambassador rice has done an excellent job for the united nations and is qualified for a number of positions in the foreign policy arena. i will leave it at that. >> president obama shows his support of susan rice as well. he had his first white house news conference after his election. the president took exception to republican senators critical of rice. if they want to come after any one they should come after me. >> kelly wright, thank you very much. senator lindsay graham is one of the three senators who have a lot of questions for ambassador rice. >> he gave us a preview of what he will be looking for during today's discussion. >> she asked
. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> certainly she misled the american public. i think that she would say that. she'd have to say that. >> now, soledad, ambassador rice is not without her supporters. democrats on the hill say rice's republican critics are still the ones politicizing the benghazi atta
to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. why did she say that -- why did she say that al-qaeda has been decimated in her statement here on this program? al-qaeda hasn't been decimated. they're on the rise. they're all over iraq. they're in training camps n libya, they're on the rise everywhere in the middle east. there's a lot of questions we have for embassador rice and she would -- i'm sure i'll have the opportunity to discuss these with her. >> chris: you're saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position just as she said. but she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states, who in a debate with mitt romney, said he had said it was a terrorist attack. he hadn't. that night on "60 minutes" he said they didn't know what kind of attack it was and he continued -- >> chris: he said in an interview with 60 minutes. >> which we didn't see until after the election. i'm sure it was such an inconsequential statement it didn't deserve the attention of the
stability and prevent al-qaeda's return after nato leaves. he is preparing for confirmation for the next hearing when he was swept in the petraeus e-mail scandal. the inspector general is investigating. >> jennifer griffin, thank you. still ahead, director of national intelligence changes his story. first, we go to point pleasant beach, new jersey, four weeks after hurricane sandy. victor! victor! i got your campbell's chunky soup. mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. the giants don't have a mascot! ohhh! eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. hmmm. for giant hunger! thanks mom! see ya! whoaa...oops! mom? i'm ok. grandma? hi sweetie! she operates the head. [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right. a hybrid? most are just no fun to drive. she operates the head. now, here's one that will make you feel alive. meet the five-passenger ford c-max hybrid. c-max says ha. c-max says wheeee. which is what you get, don't you see? cause c-max has lots more horsepower than prius v, a hybrid that c-max also bests in mpg. say hi t
senators tuesday it was the fbi that took references to al qaeda out of these unclassified talking points rice used for her tv appearances. but later in the day morell called to say he was wrong. it was actually his agency, the cia. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours and that's totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we now have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> reporter: it is quite surprising that the acting cia director gave incorrect information on something as politically explosive as the controversial talking points that susan rice used in a meeting with among the administration's chief republican critics. you know, the answer to why he did it according to senators is simply that he misspoke, wolf. >> so a quick question, dana. does that mean michael morell if the president were to nominate him to become the permanent director of the cia he would have problem
. also this morning, defense secretary leon panetta spelling out the future against al qaeda, while speaking about the september 11th attacks at a washington-based think tank. he praised what's being done but he says there's still a lot of work left to do. >> we know we're going to be smaller. we're going to be leaner. it's a reality of coming out of these wars. but we have to be agile. we have to be deployable. we have to be flexible. and we have to be on the cutting edge of technology. >> panetta also talked about investing in cyberspace, unmanned systems for the future. also, former boxing champ hector macho camacho is recovering this morning, after being shot in his face in his native puerto rico. police say camacho and another man were just sitting in a car when someone opened fire. the second man was killed. the bullet caused damage to two vertebrae in camacho's neck. he is in serious condition but expected to survive. >>> a near-riot caught on camera at a city council meeting in newark, new jersey last night. take a look. listen to this. people there storming the stage after
the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. why did she say that -- why did she say that al qaeda has been decimated? in her statement, here, on this program. al qaeda has not been decimated. they are on the rise. they are all over iraq. training camps are in libya. they are all overseer ye syria on the rise in the middle east and there's a lot of questions for ambassador rice and i'm sure i'll have the opportunity to discuss these with her. >> chris: but you are saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position. just as she said. but, she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states, who, on -- in a debate with mitt romney, said that he had said it was a terrorist attack and he hadn't and in fact that night on "60 minutes" he said they didn't know what kind of an attack it was and continued to say -- >> he said in an interview with "60 minutes" which we didn't see -- >> didn't see until after the election, i'm sure that it was such an inconsequential st
contradicted that. she also by the way said that al qaeda was disseminated along with ben laden being killed. al qaeda is not disseminated. al qaeda is roaring back in those parts of the middle east. >> bill: isn't she what washington is these day as bureaucrat? she does what she is told. she is a good soldier. she is going to be rewarded by the president with the secretary of state slot because she did his bidding. i think that's what this is, senator. >> i think that may be the view of the president of the united states. but, i think we are all responsible for what we say, particularly in positions of -- positions of responsibility to have all of the facts together before you tell the american people. and, by the way, this is also about the president of the united states who did not tell the people of this country, either did not know or didn't tell people as long as the 25th, two weeks later he was at the u.n., after being on "the view" and letterman saying that they didn't know what -- still saying that this was a hateful video that inspired. >> bill: he still hasn't explained it. he sti
by dr. rice. >> as i understand it, the explanation is that that was being withheld, the al-qaeda involvement was -- that point of the talking points was being withheld for classified reasons, but i also explored didn't you question that because that left, if you were to omit that portion, it leaves a very different impression to the american people and frankly, i didn't get a satisfactory answer to that. >> bill: joining us from washington to react, fox news analyst charles krauthammer. so bigger mess now than it's ever been. here is my assessment based on what happened today. i'm going to go on the record. this is what i think is going to happen and you can tell me if i'm right or wrong in your i think that the white house and the obamaeelection committee, all right, that means david axelrod, basically said that after the murder of the ambassador, they were going to tamp the story down so it didn't intrude on their narrative that the obama administration had decimated al-qaeda. so they ordered dr. rice, the ambassador to the u.n., to go out on the sunday shows and say that the s
at you, this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community, i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related that created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system that we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16 september, they got bad information from president obama days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? so my belief is, not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obam
they knew and reported internally that the attacks were likely terrorism and an al qaeda affiliated group could be involved. four days later rice gave no hint of that. >> we have no information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. >> reporter: last week former cia director general petraeus told congress someone in the obama administration removed references to terrorism and al qaeda from his agency's summary. senator john mccain, who has called for a special committee to investigate the matter has led the call to find out who made the changes and why. >> i was on "face the nation" the morning she came on and told that incredible story. and right after it the president of the libyan national assembly said it was al qaeda. we know it was al qaeda. and yet she never changed her story. >> reporter: yesterday rice also spoke to mccain's criticism of her. >> i do think that some of the statements he made about me have been unfounded, but i look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this wi
under oath in front of congress that he had no idea how the words al-qaeda and other phrases were removed from the talking points that cia prepared and later were reinserted. he said he didn't know how that happened, and he put out a statement earlier this week saying it happened in his shop. those are two totally contradictory things he's saying. gregg: and by the way, it's a crime to lie to congress. but let me move on. the president's news conference last week, he said the people elected him to work with the other side and not to get into partisan fights. but, steve, if he nominates rice to be the next secretary of state, wouldn't that trigger a major partisan fight, and would he really do that when, after all, he's trying to reach a bipartisan deal to avoid the fiscal cliff? >> right. look, i would be surprised if the president put her forward given everything that we've seen. there were one or two scenarios, right? either she was, this was a tryout for her and she failed, or it was the case that they sent her out on purpose as the president suggested when he said they sent ou
there and david petraeus came along and said there are reasons why they took out the al-qaeda stuff from the talking points that rice delivered on the air and i think that argument among the elites is kind of prevailing and i think that it means that if the president does appoint-- i think the confirmation goes quickly. >> not everybody agrees though. maure maureen dowd rights when a gang shows up with rpg's in a place of hot bed sympathizer and extremist training camps. >> it's not over a movie. she should have been savvy enough to wonder why the wily hillary was avoiding the talk shows. and the dop diplomate needs to show more sensitivity and independence traits clinton has demonstrated in abundance and obama can do better at state than susan rice. >> and an article called susan rice term -- >> i was disappointing in the president, what she's said about regime change in african and countries and not looking more to her resume'. >> let me pull up a point on racism and sexism business. it never cuts the other way. liberals can criticize conservative african-american as conservative black
do it. we are told that only terrorists associated with al qaeda will be applied to. we will only take away the right to trial by jury if they are part of al qaeda. but part of the security apparatus also tells us to know your neighbor, know your neighbor so you can report your neighbor. in fact, we are told by the government some of the characteristics that might make you a terrorist. we are told by the department of justice that if you have stains on your clothing, that if you are missing fingers, if you changed the color of your hair recently, that if you prefer to pay in cash, that if you own weatherized ammunition, that if you own multiple guns, you might be a terrorist, that your neighbor should report you. do we really want to relinquish our right to a trial by jury if the characteristics of terrorism are wanting to pay by cash? in missouri, they had fusion centers, they are supposed to accumulate information about terrorists and sort of assimilate federal and local and have better communications. sounds good. i'm all for better communications. before 9/11, we did mess up,
that this was an yak. the intelligence community opted to leave specific reference to al qaeda and terrorism out of her presentation because they didn't want al qaeda to know that we knew what we knew. this is classic investigative philosophy. don't let the suspects know you suspect them. it's clear to me there was no mendacity by susan rice, no incompetence, there was no cover-up by the white house. to continue to argue there was any of that is now tin foil hat stuff. there is also now no will to filibuster to block rice. this is perhaps why john mccain has softened his tone. >> but you're saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position just as she said, but she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states. >> that's an end, i hope, to the vicious and baseless character attack that has made rice the center of a witch hunt by the right even though she has done nothing to disqualify herself. mccain tried to make her unnominatable but made it so obama will look weak
on those sunday talk shows. why she did not mention al qaeda, not just that -- because we understand now that she didn't mention it because she was told that that was classified and she was given unclassified talking points and that's what she read from. the bigger question they have, we're told, is why she went further and said that the obama administration has decimated al qaeda and whether or not she said that knowing the classified information, which suggested that al qaeda might have been behind or at least an affiliate of al qaeda might have been behind this attack in benghazi. >> it will be an interesting morning on the hill. >> this is ridiculous. first of all, she wasn't secretary of state. you have critics who don't want to mention secretary of state clinton, didn't want to mention petraeus when it came to the cia. and they want to zero in on somebody who frankly was sent out on television who was not even over the ambassador. >> are we seeing here, basically, the end game on this? will this resolve these issues? do we think that basically we're going to expect to see her nomin
has made about her are unfounded. as cbs news reported, the references to al qaeda were removed from rice's unclassified talking points by the intelligence community, not the white house or the state department. exactly who edited out those references is being probed by the senate intelligence committees. rice will meet with the three republican senators in a secure room to discuss classified material. the acting director of the cia, mike morell, will also help rice answer questions in this meeting and others on the hill this week. margaret brennan, cbs news, washington. >>> in egypt, a rally by supporters of president mohamed morsi has been cancelled. overnight anti-government protesters clashed with police in cairo's tahrir square. they plan to press ahead with the demonstration today, demanding that morsi relent on his seizure of near absolute authority. he said the edict was temporary and only granted him limited authority. holly williams is in cairo. do we have any indication of what the president there is going to do? is he going to back down? >> good morning. well, president m
's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that that information was wrong. >> dana bash, let me bring you in, senior congressional correspondent, i think i saw you in the crush of reporters earlier today on the hill. set me straight. heading into this closed door meeting, the story was the senators seemed to be -- or john mccain seemed to be backing off some of the criticism of ambassador rice, and in listening to that stakeout and the three senators i'm hearing words like troubled and failed and bad. what happened in the meeting? >> reporter: well, the reason i'm told that they did soften the rhetoric and they did going into this meeting is because susan rice requested a meeting and the senators said that they felt that it was the right thing to do to kind of ease up on her publicly while they were waiting to h
the fbi removed references of al-qaeda from the talking points, but at four o'clock eastern time today, cia officials said morale misspoke and that, in fact, the cia deleted references, not the fbi. stay tuned, as they say. joining us now, former u.s. ambassador not united nations, john bolten, andrew mccarthy, former federal prosecutor who convicted the blind shake, and the author of "spring fever." great to have you both here. andrew, your reaction to what is playing out in the nation's capital. this is the nation's capital -- capital of a superpower; right? >> so they say. a lot of misspeaking going on, it would appear. you know, look, it's been obvious from the start here that they tried to play out the idea of this video nobody saw of this being the cause of the atrocity of what happened in benghazi in which four, including our ambassador, were killed. it's important to get to the bottom of it, and getting to the bottom of it, a comedy of error, should not obscure the fact this is a major advocation by the commander in chief who did not take action in a seven and a half hour siege
! >> stephanie: the original assessment of the benghazi attack was it was carried out by al-qaeda affiliated groups. he said that analysis was taken out after an interagency review in favor of a more general review that they did not tip off terrorists to u.s. knowledge of the matter. we already covered this. general petraeus and now other intelligence officials are just -- you know, making it even clearer. so let's see. john mccain, lindsey graham, blah blah, have accused the white house of stripping for political reasons. the director of the c.i.a. and now current intelligence officials have said no. intelligence agencies changed it not the white house. i don't understand why we're even talking about this still. let's see. he said the intelligence community made substantial analytical changes with the talking points were sent to the government agency, partners for their feedback. there were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community. period. another anonymous official ec
did she say that -- why did she say that -- that al qaeda has been decimated, in her statement here on this program? al qaeda hasn't been decimated. >> they are on the rise, all over iraq. they are training camps, in libbia. they are all over sirria. they are on the rise everywhere in the middle-east. >> eric: could the controversy derail ambassador rice's possible nomination as the next secretary of state? ford and joe, welcome this morning. >> thank you. >> eric: ford, that's your old boss, highly critical of miss rice. she has a long history with the president. do you expect him to nominate her? >> she should get a confrimplation hearing. blaming the intel is a cop-out and the head in the sand defense won't work. why did she allow herself to be a pawn for the administration, when it is clear within hours or a day, erch close to the matter knew it was a terrorist attack, yet, five days later, she went on the sunday shows and said, hey, it's a spontaneous protest, in response to a video. she needs to explain herself. senator mccane's -- mccain's right. susan rice is not the problem
that went to the daily briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. the others gave a different impression, if not contradicting that. like it was a protest. the person who delivered the talking points was susan rice. she said something that i think republicans believe she knew wasn't true. she said it, she must from known it wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic for two reasons. why would she know it wasn't true. >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right. but the point is intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of information that are intentional or can both be true, both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, which seemed like what was the case. so, if you were given one set of talking points that were classified i don't see why -- do you go back to the cia and say you are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here and you want to obscure the fact we know who the terrorists were -- >> this is petraeus' argument at the closed
briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. and then the up classified talking points gave a very different impression. the person who delivered those talking points was susan rice. she said something republicans believe wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic. why would she know it wasn't true? and second of all -- >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right, but the point is, intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of intelligence can be both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, and so if you were given one set of talking points that are classified and then a litter iteration that are unclassified, do you go back to the cia and say you guys are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here, and there are reasons why you would want to obscure the fact that we would know who the terrorists were, if there was -- >> which is petraeus' argument. >> i don't necessarily buy that either. but the point being at the time, the intelligence comm
in benghazi that the intelligence community knew that there were links to al qaeda. as you remember, in five different television appearances, she said there was no evidence that the attack was preplanned. now senator mccain has said she misled the public. ambassador rice says she respect s mccain but that some of his criticisms are unfounded. as cbs news has reported her unclassified talking points were edited by the intelligence community, who removed references to al qaeda, not the white house or the state department, who did that specifically is under review by senate intelligence committee. >> margaret, thank you. >>> president obama meets with small business owners today to promote his solution to the fiscal cliff. the deadline is now 35 days away. the president is holding more events tomorrow and friday. "new york times" reports this morning that a budget deal could reduce the tax deduction millions pay on their mortgage interest. nancy cordes is on capitol hill. good morning. >> reporter: good morning to you, charlie, and norah. the president and house speake
than it was before -- [inaudible] [inaudible] -- an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways. with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode is related to the video they created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. at the end of the day we're going to get to the bottom of this, we have to have a system we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just so you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give that information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got that information on 16 september. think about information from president obama days after. and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give that information, isn't it better to give no information about? my belief is not only is the information that, but i'm more convinced than ever that it was unjustified to get the scenario is presented by ambassador rice and
or not that was even relevant. here's how he responded. >> two embassies were bombed by al qaeda, one simultaneously killing many. senator collins is certainly correct that at the time the ambassador to kenya requested additional security at -- or better security at the embassy because the security at that time was at a very busy intersection, not well-defended against car bombs and the like. as a result of the attacks, the state department produced new stand aurds which basically meant that any new embassy had to be moved back from major intersections or roads. and so, you know, collins is certainly right that this request was made. now, did susan rice not respond to that? i don't think we know the answer to that. was it even susan rice's responsibility? usually this is handled by the diplomatic security bureau which is in charge of these issues and so the fact that she was in charge of africa at the time of the state department may not have much bearing on this issue. we just -- and, you know, obviously she's not responsible for the benghazi security as ambassador of the u.n. we don't really know
amended it to say or it could have been about the movie. >> they certainly didn't want to say al-qaeda, hamas or hezbollah. they didn't want to blame someone early. here is the white house defending their position, the spokesperson president press briefing. >> there are no unanswered questions about ambassador rice's appearance on sundays shows and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community. those questions have been answered. >> cenk: yeah, look, again i'm not putting it on susan rice. someone changed the talking points. john mccain is on with her on that same face the nation says no way it's a terrorist attack, it was coordinated. >> they had the talking points and went against them. you're with the three amigos, you're the fourth amigo. >> cenk: let's go on to something different. touree. >> old white establishment folks wrongly and repeatedly attacking a much younger black woman moments after an election in which blacks and women strongly went blue. >> cenk: do you think this has anything to do with rice' gender or race?
it in themselves to soften. here is the thing the way i understand it. they pulled al-qaeda out of the talking points and pulled the protest out of the talking points and she still went with it. she still went with it and told the american people everything she was told to say. >> bob: learn how the process works. c.i.a. is one of a number of intelligence agencies that put talk points. they didn't have the agre agreement. she got factual in their view, intelligence community view of what happened. she gave it to the sunday talk show. she made a mistake and said she made a mistak miswhat more u ask for? do you think he is went up and there purposefully lied? >> brian: shouldn't you do your research? >> andrea: yes. she knew there were conflicting accounts. why push anyone from the administration out to say anything at all. she should have done her research. maybe she is not a liar. maybe she is incatch tent. one thing that the senator trying to block you. it was great what mccain did. getting the heat. and republicans were being sexist. and let me give her a fair shake. john bolton was up for a
. at the end of the day, we're going to have to dismantle this terror state. imagine you had a small al qaeda state right next to the united states, shooting missiles at you. you can't talk to them. you have to defeat terror. after we defeat terror, i certainly would engage in long-term peace talks. but there first has to be a step of dismantling this terror state that's right next to us. >> and that doesn't sound very hopeful. i have to say, many of the smart minds we've spoken to say they believe this cease fire will hold. the big question is, will a broader peace agreement take hold? i ask you this. what is it going to take? egypt was critical, as you know, in brokering this deal. will egypt have to remain a permanent mediator as talks continue? >> well, i think egypt has an islamic regime also, but obviously they were mediators here in this case. we have to define the situation. we're not talking about a state that is looking for long-term peace. we're talking to a state that has decided deliberately to wipe us out. now, yes, i'm not always the bearer of good news. i want peace more than
for defense of democracy reveals u.s. interests in egypt, yes, ma'amen and tunisia were targeted by al-qaeda, in addition to their raid on the consulate in benefiting and the memo reads, quote, while much of the public debate has focused on the attack in benghazi alone, they deserve closer scrutiny. they are related to the al-qaeda network. ambassador rice is still recorded adds the front run torre place hillary clinton, although democratic senator dick durbin said yesterday he's not sure she could get the 60 votes needed for senate confirmation and he would try to get the votes together, but it's up to the president to nominate her first. >> steve: peter, thank you very much. her offensive yesterday was when the going gets tough, you got critics, go talk to them face-to-face. instead of making it better, she actually made it worse. then she brought along the acting director of the c.i.a. and he completely botched it. they were asked okay, so who changed the talking points? the c.i.a. guy said yep, i did. well, they called about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon and the c.i.a. told capitol hill,
organization. like you wouldn't deal with al qaeda. the egyptians, yes, they have special relations with them. i think the egyptian involvement was very valuable. i think the leadership that was xer s exercised by president obama and hillary clinton was tremendous. and the formalities are of less consequences than the intentions and indeed the dealing on the ground. >> i understand that. but it also seems that formalities, especially on this issue that is so intractable, they -- they're more than formalities. that is a sign of something so much deeper. which brings me to egypt. you negotiated now using egypt as an interimmediate airy. they're an islamist government. their president appeared at rallies where they talk about jerusalem as the capital of the arabs, there are chants we are all hamas. as you said, he stepped up and played a pro active role here. are you setting a precedent where you're going to have to talk to hamas? >> well, again, we will be very happy to talk to hamas. we have been ready to talk to hamas since they took over gaza, actually in a coup against the plo. but first, t
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 69 (some duplicates have been removed)